Skip to main content
· 10/5/1897

Landauer v. Sioux Falls Imp. Co.

Citations

  • 10 S.D. 205
  • 72 N.W. 467
  • 1897 S.D. LEXIS 44

Syllabus

<p>1. Affixing a corporate seal to the note of a corporation does not destroy its negotiability; Comp. Laws, ‘Sec. 3549, abolishing all distinctions between sealed and unsealed instruments, being restricted only by section 4849, limiting the period within which an action on a sealed instrument can be commenced. ,</p> <p>2. Where a note, with a guaranty thereon containing an alteration made by drawing a pen mark across the word “we” and inserting the pronoun “I-” (thereby changing a joint contract to a joint and several obligation), was admitted in evidence and the jury instructed that the guaranty could not be avoided unless the guarantors proved that the alteration was made without their knowledge or consent, after the guaranty was executed, it was not error to charge that the appearance of the instrument was sufficient to put a subsequent purchaser on inquiry.</p> <p>3. It was not necessary to instruct that the alteration would not release the guarantors if made by a stranger without the consent of the holder, in the absence of request for such instruction, or of any claim that the paper was ever accessible to one not assuming to benefit thereby.</p> <p>4. The presumption that the holder of negotiable paper is an indorsee in due course is overcome by evidence that the instrument was unlawfully put in circulation, and casts on the holder the burden of proving that he purchased it for value before maturity, and without notice of any defense.</p> <p>5. Such rule is not in conflict with Comp. Laws, Sec. 4470, which provides that “the signature of every * * * indorsee of a negotiable instrument is presumed to have been made for a valuable consideration, before maturity, * * * and in the ordinary course of business,” but which does not declare what evidence will overcome the presumption, nor embrace all the elements of an indorsee in due course.</p> <p>g. An instruction cannot be reviewed unless an exception was taken at the proper time and the objection included in the

Judges: Fuller, Haney

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.